2012/2013: Challenging years for European asset managers


18 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 5 χρόνια και 4 μήνες)

426 εμφανίσεις

Asset Management Group

Challenging years for
European asset managers
October 2012
European asset managers face significant regulatory challenges in the remainder of 2012 and in 2013. The impact of new
regulation will be substantial and will cause upheaval and change in the sector. Allen & Overy’s Asset Management Group
has summarised European and US areas of regulation that will impact European asset managers, looking at the policy
behind each, timelines for its implementation, business models in scope and, most importantly, the potential impact on
your business. Links to more detail are included in each section.


Introduction 3
European regulation 4
Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive
European Markets Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR)
UCITS IV, V & Potential VI Directives
Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II)
Solvency II
US regulation 14
Commodity Exchange Act – CPO and CTA Registration
and Reporting Requirements
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 – Registration and
Reporting Requirements
Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act, aka the “Volcker
Dodd-Frank Act – Designation of Systemically Important
Financial Instiutions (SIFIs)
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 – Large Trader Reporting

2012/2013: Challenging years for European asset managers – October 2012
Covered in this bulletin are:
European Regulation

Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive

European Markets Infrastructure Regulation

UCITS IV, V & Potential VI Directives

MiFID II Directive

Solvency II
US Regulation

Commodity Exchange Act – CPO and CTA
Registration and Reporting Requirements

Investment Advisers Act – Registration and
Reporting Requirements

Dodd-Frank Act – Volcker Rule

Dodd-Frank Act – Designation of Systemically
Important Financial Institutions

Securities Exchange Act – Large Trader Reporting
For further information on regulatory change affecting the asset management industry please see
Allen & Overy’s regulatory tracker:
. The site provides forward-looking and historical timelines for
policy implementation, as well as links to source materials and Allen & Overy briefings on the relevant regulations.
European regulation
What is the policy?
Like the vast majority of new regulation facing the
sector, the AIFMD is a by-product of the financial crisis.
In recognition of the size of investments now owned by
alternative investment funds (
) and controlled by
their alternative investment fund managers (
regulators see it as systemically important to have a
co-ordinated pan-European Union (
) approach as to
how AIFs wherever established should be (i) managed,
(ii) use depositaries and (iii) leverage, value their assets
and market their interests to European-based investors.
Compliance with this new approach will enable authorised
AIFMs to use a pan-EU marketing passport to distribute
their AIFs to those target investors who are classified as
MiFID “professional clients”. The requirement on AIFMs
to become authorised and the availability of the European
passport will come into effect over a series of phases that
will be concluded, at the earliest, in 2018.
When does it come into effect and what is going to
happen before it does?
The AIFMD came into force on 1 July 2011 and, as a
Level 1 EU directive, is due to be transposed into local law
in each of the EU member states by 22 July 2013. Prior to
that date the Level 2 measures which add further detail to
the rules are to be finalised by the European Commission
). In November 2011 the European
Securities and Markets Authority (
) issued its final
advice on a significant number of those Level 2 measures
ESMA Level 2 Advice
Since then ESMA has published further AIFMD related
consultation and discussion papers, notably a discussion
paper on key concepts in the AIFMD (including guidance
on the scope of the terms AIFM and AIF under the
AIFMD) and a consultation paper on sound remuneration
policies under the AIFMD.
The next important milestone will be the publication of
the final Level 2 measures by the Commission (the
Level 2 Measures
). The Commission has delegated
powers to implement Level 2 measures. During the course
of spring 2012, the Commission’s draft Level 2 measures
were sent by the Commission to the European Parliament
and European Council and subsequently leaked to the
public. Those Commission draft Level 2 measures diverged
in several key aspects from the ESMA Level 2 Advice (see
further below).
It is expected that the Commission will publish the Final
Level 2 Measures in the next few weeks. This will then
pave the way for legislators and national regulatory
bodies to prepare and adopt further national implementing
legislation and work on such local measures is already
underway in several member states.
In addition, it is expected that ESMA will, following
on from its discussion and consultation papers issued
this year, finalise draft regulatory technical standards
on key concepts within the AIFMD for Commission
endorsement by the end of the year and also adopt a final
text of guidelines on sound remuneration policies under
the AIFMD.
How could your asset management business be within
its scope?
If your regular business is to take investment decisions
for, or to provide risk management services to, any fund
or other collective investment undertaking (which is
broadly and vaguely defined in the AIFMD) which is not
authorised as an UCITS (ie that collective investment
undertaking is an AIF) then you are likely to be subject
to the AIFMD. This is because you fall to be classified as
an AIFM and the AIFMD looks to regulate each AIFM
(rather than directly regulate the AIF it services). Once
the AIFMD is transposed into local law its impact on each

2012/2013: Challenging years for European asset managers – October 2012
AIFM and that AIFM’s AIF(s) will depend on whether that
particular AIFM has its registered office in an EU member
state (an
) or outside the EU (a
and whether a relevant AIF is authorised, registered or has
its registered office in an EU member state (an
) or
outside the EU (a
If your business is indirectly appointed (eg as a
sub-manager) to take investment decisions for, or to
provide risk management services to, any AIF then your
business may be subject to the AIFMD. This is either
because (i) your relationship with the relevant AIF is such
that you (rather than the directly appointed manager)
are going to be characterised as the AIFM to that AIF
or (ii) you are the delegate of the AIFM and that AIFM,
if it is an EU AIFM, will be subject to rules on how it
can delegate and its retention of liability (which it will
probably want to contractually provide for in its delegation
to you).
What will it mean for your business?
If you are an EU AIFM and have any AIF(s) that you want
to market in your home state or other EU member states
then from 22 July 2013 you will have to be authorised
by your local regulator and conduct your business in
compliance with the AIFMD. However, if you do not wish
to market your EU AIF(s) in EU member states from that
date, you will have one year to apply for authorisation.
If you are already a MiFID firm, getting regulated as
an AIFM may be as simple as topping-up your existing
license with your regulator. However, the conduct of
business upheaval is likely to be significant. For example,
the AIFMD introduces rules on remuneration of employees
in any authorised AIFM. Being regulated will also impact
on the relationships that the AIFM’s AIF has with its
other service providers due to your status as an EU AIFM
which requires you to ensure the AIF(s) meets certain
standards (eg on using leverage and having a depositary
and an independent valuations process). This is likely
to mean the contracts with those other service providers
need to be amended. If as an EU AIFM you market your
relevant EU AIF(s) in the EU then you must use the
pan-EU marketing passport, but for non-EU AIF(s) you can
continue to market using any available private placement
regimes (
) which EU member states decide to retain
post 22 July 2013 (nb there is nothing that obliges those
members states with PPRs to do so and Germany, for
example, has recently announced plans to abolish its PPR
post 22 July 2013), provided that such non-EU AIF(s) also
meets certain requirements imposed by the AIFMD.
What are the remaining key issues?
There are few concepts and provisions in the AIFMD that
have not attracted some form of criticism or contention.
The below however is a short overview of certain key
points that remain to be settled. It is hoped that closure on
many of these will come when the Commission publishes
the Final Level 2 Measures.

Delegation arrangements (letter box entity)
The AIFMD states that an AIFM must not delegate
functions to such an extent that it becomes a “letter
box entity” and hence can no longer be considered
as an AIFM. Uncertainty still exists over the concept
of a letter box entity with the Commissions draft
Level 2 measures diverging from the ESMA Draft
Level 2 Advice. The ESMA Draft Level 2 Advice
had proposed that an AIFM becomes a letter box
entity when it no longer has the necessary powers and
resources to supervise delegation or no longer has
the power to take decisions in key areas falling under
responsibility of senior management (in particular in
relation to implementation of the general investment
policy and strategies).
The Commission, whilst retaining these two
alternative limbs, has added a further alternative limb
proposing a quantitative test where an AIFM would
be considered a letter box entity if the tasks delegated
exceed the tasks remaining with the AIFM. It remains
to be seen whether this addition will find its way
into the Final Level 2 Measures but at this stage it is
unclear how this quantitative test would be assessed
and monitored in practice, in particular in the case
of self managed AIFs where a significant number
of tasks are commonly delegated to third party
providers. Further, adoption of this quantitative test
would also create a divergence between the UCITS
and AIFMD rules on delegation and make it more
difficult for those entities that will be authorised under
both the UCITS and the AIFMD regime to delegate
the AIFM functions to the same entities as under a
UCITS delegation.

The Commission draft Level 2 measures went
considerably further in scope than the ESMA Draft
Level 2 Advice in fleshing out the obligations of and
relating to depositaries, for example by expanding the
list of points that need to be covered in the contract
appointing a depositary. A key issue that remains
unclear is whether certain collateral assets must be
held in custody or are subject to a record keeping
duty only. The Commission draft Level 2 measures
extend the depositary’s obligation to hold assets
in custody where they have not been provided as
collateral under the terms of a title transfer or under a
security financial collateral arrangement transferring
control or possession to the collateral taker. This
potentially means that any collateral must be held
in custody and will have implications for stock
lending and the relationship between depositaries of
an AIFM and custodians for collateral which may
need to become sub-depositories. The Commission
draft Level 2 measures also did not include several
materiality/reasonableness qualifications, in particular
in the context of depository liability.

Professional Indemnity Insurance
The Commission draft Level 2 measures are
considerably stricter and less permissive vis-à-vis
AIFMs than the ESMA Draft Level 2 Advice.
In particular, levels of coverage envisaged in the
Commission draft Level 2 measures are higher
and the Commission draft Level 2 measures do not
allow for a combination of insurance and own funds
as an alternative to just insurance. There is also a
question mark over whether AIFMs will be able to
access non-EU insurers due to the requirement in the
Commission draft Level 2 measures that the insurance
undertaking must be subject to prudential regulation
and on-going supervision in accordance with EU law.

Calculation of AuM
In calculating the AuM of an AIFM (which
determines whether the AIFM is required to become
authorised or not), the ESMA Draft Level 2 Advice
had envisaged to exclude FX/interest rate hedging
positions. The Commission draft Level 2 measures
did not exclude hedging positions from the
calculation of AuM. If this is tracked through to the
Final Level 2 Measures, it may mean that AIFMs that
to date had assumed they would fall outside the scope
of the regulation will be covered by it.

ESMA will be consulting with market stakeholders
until the end of September on its draft remuneration
guidelines. Reponses to the consultation will be
considered by ESMA before it publishes its final
guidelines before the end of the year. The draft
guidelines are based on existing EU rules on
remuneration for investment bankers and have
received a mixed response from the asset management
community. In particular, the draft guidelines,
whilst making it clear that the AIFMD’s principles
on remuneration are to be applied proportionally
do not offer much by way of specific guidance in
the guidelines that will help AIFMs to determine
whether or not their remuneration policies are in line
with the AIFMD.

Key concepts in the AIFMD
As noted above, in February 2012 ESMA published
a discussion paper on key issues in the AIFMD
that were singled out for further clarification such
as the definition of the AIFM, the definition of an
alternative AIF and the interaction of the AIFMD with
the UCITS Directive and MiFID. A more extensive
consultation paper was expected to be published in
the second quarter of 2012 but this has not happened
and it is currently not clear when this paper will be
published. ESMA’s stated aim is to issue technical
guidance on these issues before the end of the year.

Third country issues
Considerable concern remains over third country
related provisions in the AIFMD, ie relating
to Non-EU AIFM and AIFs, the interaction
with third country regulators, appointment
of third country depositaries and delegation
of investment management to third country

2012/2013: Challenging years for European asset managers – October 2012
managers. In all of these areas the Commission
draft Level 2 measures significantly deviated from
the ESMA Final Level 2 Advice and have attracted
widespread criticism. In addition, two further
specific third country related issues are considered in
more detail below.

AIFMD impact on feeder AIFs
To date, little attention has been given to the impact
of the AIFMD on the structuring of funds that have a
master/feeder structure and the impact of the AIFMD
on those master/feeder structures that have a

non-EU element whether at the master AIF or feeder
AIF level. Feeder funds in such structures can still be
offered to investors in the EU next year on the basis of
PPRs where available and in compliance with certain
conditions, in particular compliance with parts of
the AIFMD (depending on how in scope the master/
feeder structure is). However, it is ambiguous in the
drafting of the AIFMD whether those provisions
of the AIFMD that will be binding at the feeder
AIF level will also need to be complied with at the
master AIF level. This makes structuring any master/
feeder structures with a non-EU element complicated
and care will need to be taken to fully address the
potential implications on distribution avenues in
Europe when structuring such funds.

Continuation of Private Placement Regimes past
July 2013
In the initial phase of the AIFMD, the cross
border marketing passport will not be available to
non-EU AIF(s) (whether managed by a EU AIFM or
a non-EU AIFM) and EU AIFs managed by non-EU
AIFMs and those AIFs can continue be marketed
using any available PPRs which EU member states
decide to retain post 22 July 2013. There are growing
concerns that from July 2013 certain member states
will shut down their PPRs in light of plans announced
to that effect by the German government. This may
mean that from July 2013 access to an increasing
number of markets in the EU will be restricted to EU
AIFMs marketing EU AIFs.
Read more
We have prepared a number of client bulletins that go into
significant detail about the scope of the AIFMD as well as
the conduct of business issues affecting asset managers and
other service providers to AIF:
Analysing the impact of the AIFM Directive
We have also prepared a consolidated version of the
AIFMD and the ESMA advice on the Level 2 measures as
a useful tool for anyone looking into the detail of the rules
and principles contained within the directive. This is also
available via the link above and will be updated once the
Commission has issued the Final Level 2 Measures.
What is the policy?
EMIR is the primary vehicle through which the EU is
intending to deliver on the G20 commitment for mandatory
clearing of standardised derivatives by the end of 2012.
It mirrors similar initiatives in the US (as part of the
Dodd-Frank Act) and elsewhere globally. The intention
is to ensure efficient, safe and sound derivatives markets,
reducing counterparty and operational risks, increasing
transparency and enhancing market integrity. A key
element to this is the increased use of clearing structures
through central counterparties (
EMIR introduces a mandatory CCP clearing obligation
for “financial counterparties” in respect of certain
“standardised” OTC derivatives – the clearing obligation
does not extend to non-financial counterparties except
those that deal in material volumes. There are also
potentially significant requirements in relation to OTC
transactions which are not centrally cleared and reporting
obligations for all OTC derivatives.
Certain elements of the regime remain unclear, particularly
in relation to the extra-territorial effect of the requirements
for business with a non-EU element and how EMIR
requirements will interact with similar legislative
initiatives elsewhere, such as Dodd-Frank and related rule
making currently in progress in the US.
When does it come into effect and what is going to
happen before it does?
EMIR entered into force on 16 August 2012 and is
now binding and directly applicable in all EU Member
States without the necessity for any further national
implementation. However certain regulatory, legal and
technical implementing standards (referred to below as
Technical Standards
) must be drafted and adopted at
EU level before the majority of the obligations contained
in EMIR will become effective.
A consultation paper related to the draft Technical
Standards on OTC Derivatives, CCP’s and Trade
Repositories (the
ESMA Consultation
) was published by
ESMA in June 2012 and in the same month, a consultation
paper related to the Technical Standards on capital
requirements for CCPs (the
CCP Consultation
) was
published by the European Banking Authority (
A joint paper by ESMA, the EBA and the European
Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (
on draft Technical Standards in respect of risk mitigation
techniques for non-cleared OTC derivatives (the
) has been delayed. Publication of the Joint
Consultation is dependant on the completion of various
other consultations - in particular, the Basel consultation on
margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives.
All of the Technical Standards, once finalised, will need to
be adopted into law, which although scheduled for the end
of 2012, does not seem likely to be achieved in full at this
date, particularly in respect of those Technical Standards
relating to non-cleared trades.
How could your asset management business be within
its scope?
The definition of “financial counterparties” who will be
subject to the mandatory clearing obligation captures a
broad range of EU authorised entities, including UCITS,
institutions for occupational retirement provision (subject
to delayed implementation for certain pension funds)
and AIFs under the AIFMD. Even if you do not meet
the “financial counterparty” definition, if you engage
in material volumes of OTC derivative trading above
a certain threshold other than for commercial hedging
purposes for your clients, you or other asset managers
they employ could cause them to become subject to the
mandatory clearing obligation.
The thresholds have yet to be set but the ESMA
Consultation proposes that thresholds will be calculated
according to the aggregate notional value of OTC
derivative contracts per asset class. The five proposed
asset classes and thresholds are: credit derivatives
(EUR 1 billion), equity derivatives (EUR 1 billion),
interest rate (EUR 3 billion), foreign exchange
(EUR 3 billion) and commodity/other (EUR 3 billion).
When a threshold for one asset class is exceeded, it is
proposed that the party will be subject to the mandatory
clearing obligation in respect of all classes of OTC
derivative contracts.
There are a number of exemptions set out in EMIR which
can be summarised as the hedging exemption, the pension
fund exemption and the intra-group exemption. Pursuant
to the hedging exemption, a non financial counterparty
will be able to disregard any transactions “objectively
measureable as reducing risks directly related to [its]
commercial activity” when calculating whether a threshold
had been exceeded. The intra-group exemption means
that certain OTC derivatives entered into between group
companies will not need to be cleared and/or collateralised.
The pension fund exemption is available to certain pension
funds and relieves pension funds of the obligation to clear
for an initial, extendable period of 3 years.
ESMA will identify which types of OTC derivative
will be considered sufficiently standardised to be made
subject to the mandatory clearing obligation (
). In principle, OTC derivatives referencing
any type of underlying (including interest rates, FX, credit,
commodities, equities) could be caught provided they
meet the objective eligibility criteria established in EMIR.
In practice, we expect that the regime will focus at the
outset on the most liquid, vanilla contract types for which
CCPs at that stage currently have live cleared offerings (in
particular, interest rates and credit indices).

2012/2013: Challenging years for European asset managers – October 2012
What will it mean for your business?

Those who are subject to the mandatory clearing
obligation and deal in Eligible Derivatives, will
be obliged to clear them either (i) by becoming a
clearing member of a relevant CCP, (ii) by becoming
a client of an entity which is a clearing member,
or (iii) through an indirect clearing arrangement
(ie becoming a client of a client of a clearing
member). In respect of indirect clearing, consultation
as to the nature of such a relationship is on-going.
You will need to consider establishing any such
necessary clearing relationships well in advance of the
introduction of the obligation.
Cleared business will be subject to very different
documentation, risk management (including CCP
margin requirements) and cost considerations from
OTC dealings (eg the delivery of liquid assets or cash
as margin) so the impact on your business should be
assessed as early as possible.

Risk Mitigation
All parties must take certain risk mitigation measures
with respect to all OTC derivative transactions which
are not cleared in order to “measure, monitor and
mitigate operational counterparty credit risk”. These
include for example timely confirmation, valuation,
reconciliation, compression and dispute resolution in
respect of OTC derivative transactions. ESMA have
suggested that non-financial counterparties below the
threshold would need to confirm their OTC derivative
contracts as soon as possible and by the second
business day following the trade day at the latest.
Non-financial counterparties above the threshold and
also financial counterparties are expected to confirm
their OTC derivative contracts as soon as possible and
at the latest by the end of the day when they entered
into the contract.
Financial counterparties and non-financial
counterparties above a threshold must also ensure
the “timely, accurate and appropriately segregated
exchange of collateral” with respect to trades which
are not cleared.
This means that for OTC derivatives business that
you continue to undertake on an uncleared basis, there
are likely to be new prescriptive rules, particularly in
respect of financial counterparties and non-financial
counterparties above a threshold, to govern
operational and credit risk which will lead potentially
to intrusive levels of regulatory engagement in
determining collateral levels, collateral type and
related risk management processes. Guidance is
awaited from the Joint Consultation on the details of
this aspect of EMIR.

All parties must ensure that the conclusion,
modification or termination of any derivative contract
is reported to a trade repository no later than the
working day following the conclusion, modification
or termination of the contract.
Read more
Information regarding EMIR and related guidance is
contained in the “Clearing” section of GlobalView and will
be updated as matters progress.
What is the policy?
The UCITS Directive, which set-out the first EU
harmonised regulatory regime for European-based retail
funds, has largely contributed to the development of the
European investment funds industry allowing managers
to distribute their UCITS in EU member states. UCITS
is now considered to be a worldwide label of quality for
retail funds deriving mainly from their investment rules
and protections granted to the end-investors.
The UCITS IV Directive aims to simplify and reduce
the cost of passporting UCITS in EU member states
and creates a management passport for the benefit of
European managers.
With the UCITS V Directive proposal, the Commission
intends to strengthen the strict liability of UCITS
depositaries and regulate the remuneration of the
employees of UCITS managers in a manner similar
to the measures set out for AIFM under the AIFMD,
ie aligning the interests of UCITS managers with those
of investors and reducing systemic risk.
UCITS VI is not yet at the legislative proposal stage – it
is just a consultation – but it reviews various aspects
including most controversially the scope of eligible
assets as explained below.
When does it come into effect and what is going to
happen before it does?
The UCITS IV Directive came into force in 2009 and had to
be implemented in each EU member state by 1 July 2011.
Member states were given an additional year, until
30 June 2012, to implement the requirement for UCITS to be
marketed using key investor information documents (
instead of simplified prospectuses. Between 1 July 2011 and
30 June 2012, if the local regulator put rules regarding KIIDs
in place, it was possible to market a UCITS with either a
simplified prospectus or KIID. As of 1 July 2012, the use of
KIIDs is mandatory throughout all EU member states and
simplified prospectuses will not be permitted anymore. The
Level 2 measures were adopted on 1 July 2010.
The Commission has adopted, on 3 July 2012, the UCITS V
Directive proposal, in order to amend the UCITS Directive,
as regards depositary functions, remuneration policies and
sanctions. The proposal has been submitted to the European
Parliament and the Council for their consideration under the
codecision procedure. Member States are then likely to have
two years to transpose the provisions into their national laws
and regulations, which means that the new rules could apply
by the end of 2014.
How could your asset management business be
within its scope?
If you are a UCITS management company or its delegate
then you will benefit from the UCITS IV Directive
reducing the previous barriers affecting UCITS. The
marketing process under UCITS IV is simpler and faster
as it only requires a notification to be sent from the UCITS
home regulator to the host regulator. The old lengthy local
registration process subject to the approval of the local
regulator is no longer applicable. The host regulator cannot
deny the registration of a structured UCITS, even where
it may have doubt about the eligibility of the underlying
financial index of the structured UCITS under the
UCITS Directive.
As a result of the management passport, a UCITS
management company is now authorised to set-up and
manage UCITS established in another EU member state
on a cross-border basis or through a branch. There is no
longer any need to go through a local UCITS management
company to set up and manage local UCITS.
The implementation of UCITS IV is an opportunity for
the rationalisation of the products range with the new
feeder/master and cross border merger regimes, subject to
the expected clarification of the applicable tax treatment.
This rationalisation will improve the competitiveness of
European asset management activities through economies
of scale in the marketing of UCITS (mainly through
feeder funds) and trigger the increase of the assets under
management per UCITS.

2012/2013: Challenging years for European asset managers – October 2012
The purpose of the UCITS V Directive proposal is to
provide (i) a definition of the tasks and liabilities of
the depositary of a UCITS fund; (ii) clear rules on the
remuneration of UCITS managers, ie by impacting the
way they are remunerated and fostering remuneration
policies that are better linked with the long-term interest
of investors and the achievement of the investment
objectives of the UCITS; and (iii) a common approach
to how core breaches of the UCITS legal framework
are sanctioned, introducing common standards on the
levels of administrative fines so as to ensure they always
exceed potential benefits derived from the violation of
provisions. This could have a significant impact on UCITS
management companies and managers insofar as their
remuneration policies are in place, but also as breaches
of UCITS management rules could lead to potentially
higher fines.
What will it mean for your business?
Based on the management passport, the delegation route
as well as the up-coming new regulatory synergies with
the AIFM regulated status, it is a good time to revisit your
organisation and location of fund management companies
within or outside the EU to ensure that the investment
management, risk management, administrative and
marketing functions are run in the best EU or non-EU
location, whether within entities locally regulated or not.
This may entail a regulatory arbitrage between core and
non-core fund/asset management activities driven by a
cost/profitability approach.
Once the UCITS V reform is finalised and adopted it may
be necessary to revisit your custodian delegation structure
as well as your remuneration policies.
ESMA Guidelines on ETFs and other UCITS issues
On 25 July 2012, ESMA published its guidelines on ETFs
and other UCITS issues (the
ESMA Guidelines
) along
with a consultation for guidelines on recallability of repo
and reverse repo arrangements (the
Repo Guidelines
Once the Repo Guidelines are published, UCITS managers
will have 12 months to comply with most provisions of
both sets of guidelines.
The ESMA Guidelines will have a significant impact
on index-tracking UCITS, including more particularly
UCITS ETFs, which will have to increase significantly
the level of disclosure to investors, but also ensure that
when the stock exchange value of the units of the UCITS
significantly varies from its net asset value, investors
who have bought their units on the secondary market are
allowed to sell them directly back to the UCITS ETF.
The level of disclosure to investors is also increased for
UCITS using efficient portfolio management techniques
and OTC derivatives instruments which are also the
subject of additional obligations. These obligations include
in particular the requirement that revenues arising from
efficient portfolio management techniques are returned
to the UCITS and that the UCITS is able at any time to
recall any security that has been lent out or terminate any
securities lending agreement into which it has entered.
Under the ESMA Guidelines, the agreement with a
counterparty to an OTC derivative which has discretion
over the composition or the management of the underlyers
of such OTC derivative will be considered as an
investment management delegation for the purposes of
the UCITS Directive. More stringent rules on collateral
for both efficient management portfolio techniques and
OTC derivatives are also introduced, which include for
instance the requirement to ensure appropriate liquidity,
composition, diversification, valuation, quality as well as
to comply with new rules on the re-investment of such
collateral. Specific stress tests will be required where the
UCITS receives collateral for at least 30% of its assets.
The ESMA Guidelines have also clarified and restricted
the scope of the rules applicable to financial indices in
a way that has already started to reshape the investment
structure of certain sophisticated UCITS, in particular
where such structure’s purpose is to give exposure to the
commodities universe. These new rules include additional
consideration to be given when a UCITS seeks to ensure
that a financial index is diversified, appropriately published
and represents a benchmark for the market to which it
refers. One significant consequence of these new rules
is that daily-rebalanced indices and single commodity
futures indices will be banned, even as underlyers of OTC
derivatives in which a UCITS invests.
Building primarily on the ESMA Guidelines, the
Commission launched on 26 July 2012 a consultation with
a view to improving the UCITS framework on key points
such as the regulation of money market funds in the future,
the involvement of UCITS in securities lending and repo
arrangements and the exposure to certain OTC derivatives.
The consultation also seeks to discuss the approach to
investors’ redemptions, the possibility of a depositary
passport and the means to foster long-term investment. The
consultation also seeks to make a first review of UCITS IV
by making an assessment of whether the UCITS IV rules
may require improvements.
The asset management industry has reacted to the
publication of the UCITS VI consultation with fear that
the reduction of eligible assets for UCITS could constitute
a challenge to the viability of certain existing products
and would entail additional restructuring in the future.
However, the consultation is worded in very open question
explanatory format and it is not possible at this stage to
know what a possible draft UCITS VI legislation may
look like.
Read more
We have prepared a bulletin on the interactions and
overlaps between AIFMD, UCITS IV & V Directives
and MFID:
AIFMD, UCITSD and MiFID: Interactions and Overlaps
What is the policy?
The Commission cites several reasons for the revision of
MiFID, one of which is investor protection. One aspect of this
is the Commission considers that banks and other financial
intermediaries give tainted advice, as they are strongly
motivated by inducements paid by product providers such
as asset managers. The Commission also considers that this
applies to asset managers that allocate products for which
they receive retrocession payments, rather than stocks or
bonds. The Commission intends to prohibit the acceptance
of inducements by asset managers. As regards advisors, they
will be given the choice to either inform the client that their
advice is not independent – in which case they can continue to
receive inducements – or to tell their clients that their advice is
independent, which means that they would no longer be able
to accept inducements.
When does it come into effect and what is going to
happen before it does?
MiFID II will probably come into force in 2012, and will have
to be implemented by EU member states in 2014 at the latest.
While few market participants think that the proposed rules on
inducements will become more liberal, it is known that some
members of the European Parliament want to ban advisers
from accepting inducements completely, rather than giving
them the choice of declaring themselves as non-independent.
How could your asset management business be within
its scope?
If you are an asset manager that makes, or whose funds make,
retrocession payments then you may be indirectly affected
by MiFID II. Your third party distributors, who receive those
retrocession payments when selling your products may
no longer be allowed to accept such fees. Therefore, they
may be more inclined to sell other, non-retrocession paying
products. Fund-linked insurance products may be favoured by
distributors, as such products are not currently be caught by
the revised Directive.
What will it mean for your business?
Selling your funds may become less attractive for your
third party distributors. This is true for all funds that
pay retrocessions. While some fund products that pay
little or no retrocession fees may not be affected by the
proposals, products such as ETFs may be caught by
other current MiFID II proposed changes. For example,
synthetic ETFs, which do not physically replicate an
index, but through a total return swap, may be adversely
affected by MiFID II if they can no longer be sold
on an “execution-only” basis. Rather, synthetic ETFs
may be considered “complex products”, which can
only be sold subject to the seller having conducted
an appropriateness test. The need to conduct such a
test may act as a disincentive for the selling of such
complex funds.

2012/2013: Challenging years for European asset managers – October 2012
Read more
We are preparing a number of bulletins providing more
information about MiFID II. The bulletin linked to below
explains in more detail the new rules applicable for banks
product originators who distribute products to retail clients:
MiFID Review: the impact on your business with private
What is the policy?
Solvency II is the new prudential regime for most insurers
and reinsurers authorised in the European Economic
Area (
) which will replace the existing framework
for prudential supervision. A key aim is to align each
undertaking’s solvency requirements and assets with the
risks inherent in its business.
When does it come into effect and what is going to
happen before it does?
The transposition date for Solvency II is not yet final
and is the subject of ongoing debate, including the
potential to delay by a year. The current scheduled
date that Solvency II will have to be transposed into
Member State law by is 1 July 2013 – according to a
recent draft Directive – and implemented by insurers
and reinsurers from 1 January 2014. The Level 2
measures, which contain the detailed provisions of the
Solvency II regime, are not yet final, but are expected
to be published directly after the entering into force of
the so called “Omnibus II Directive” which is expected
in late 2012 (the European Parliament plenary vote is
scheduled for 20 November 2012).
Why does Solvency II matter for asset management?
Insurers and reinsurers are important institutional
investors: European insurers and reinsurers are the largest
investors in Europe in absolute terms and the largest
debt investors (Fitch 2011). Investment by insurers and
reinsurers accounts for 30% of European managers’ assets
under management (Fitch 2011). Solvency II will affect
investment decisions taken by insurers and reinsurers in
the following ways:

firms using a standard formula to calculate their
solvency requirement will be required to apply a
specified capital charge for the assets they hold.
Riskier assets are likely to attract a larger capital
charge, making them more “expensive” to hold.
Anecdotally, high rated fixed income is likely to be
less expensive than equity;

it seems likely that insurers and reinsurers will no
longer be subject to express asset and counterparty
concentration requirements (even thought some
drafts of national transposition acts want to stick
to at least some quantitative restrictions). Insurers
and reinsurers will rather be guided by the amount
of capital they have to hold against each asset
(by way of a capital charge), and by the “prudent
person principle”. The prudent person principle
requires firms to invest only in “assets and
instruments whose risks [it] can properly identify,
measure, monitor, manage, control and report” and
to invest in a manner which ensures the “security,
quality, liquidity and profitability of the portfolio
as a whole”;

investment by insurers and reinsurers in securitisations
is likely to be more costly as a result of higher capital
charges imposed in relation to asset-backed securities,
and more practically difficult as a result of onerous
due diligence requirements proposed to be imposed in
relation to such investments; and

we have seen (and advised on) increased interest in
short to medium-term bonds and infrastructure and
real estate loans by insurance companies already based
on the proposed rules of Solvency II and the draft
technical standards and Level 2 measures.
Does Solvency II have any extra-territorial effect?
Solvency II contains a concept of “third country
equivalence” which permits entities in non-EEA
jurisdictions to be treated favourably in certain respects
(especially in relation to the group solvency requirement).
Countries seeking third country equivalence could
implement Solvency II-like rules in order to gain
equivalence, which might be expected to mean a similar
treatment of assets to that set out in Solvency II.
Asset managers from outside the EEA seeking to court
investment by EEA insurers will need to be mindful of
the regulatory treatment their offering will receive under
Solvency II. However, this also holds true with regard to
European based asset managers also are already preparing
for Solvency II optimised products.
Find out more
We have an international Solvency II information group
exchanging Solvency II-optimised structuring ideas
for both insurance companies and asset managers. The
contacts listed at the end of this report will be able to
assist you in contacting our Solvency II experts.
US regulation

What is the policy?
As a result of recent changes to the Commodity Exchange
Act (
) pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, a fund, SPV,
trust or similar arrangement (
CP Entity
) that has entered,
or will enter, into one or more swaps may be determined
to be a commodity pool. This is an addition to the prior
definition whereby a CP Entity that trades commodity
interests, including futures contracts, forwards, options,
forex, swaps or interests in other commodity pools, is
regulated as a commodity pool.
A “
commodity pool
” is defined as any investment trust,
syndicate or other enterprise operated for the purpose
of trading any “
commodity interests
.” A “commodity
interest” under the CEA includes, among other things,
options contracts, foreign exchange contracts and any
contract for the purchase or sale of a commodity for future
delivery (such as any futures or security futures product).
The Dodd-Frank Act amended the definitions to include
swaps within the definition of commodity interest.
Any management of or advice in relation to a CP Entity
may subject one or more of the relevant parties to
regulation by the United States Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (
) and the National Futures
Association (
) as commodity pool operators (
and/or commodity trading advisors (
), even if
the party and/or the CP Entity is formed outside of the
United States. Although the CFTC previously gave
fund managers broad exemptions from CPO and CTA
registration, disclosure, reporting, and record-keeping
requirements based on an investor sophistication standard
that was widely used in the private funds industry, the
CFTC eliminated these exemptions from registration.
(See CFTC Regulation 4.14(a)(5) and rescinded
Regulation 4.13(a)(4).)
When did it come into effect?
The CEA changes will be effective as of 12 October 2012,
though the CFTC has provided registration relief until
31 December 2012 for certain entities and may provide
further registration relief for securitization vehicles.
Do any exemptions still apply?
CFTC Regulation 4.13(a)(1) continues to provide an
exemption for any operator that operates only one privately
offered pool for no compensation. CFTC Regulation
4.13(a)(2) provides an extreme de minimis exemption
for any operator whose commodity pools have an
aggregate subscription of $400,000 or less and less than

2012/2013: Challenging years for European asset managers – October 2012
15 participants. Finally, CFTC Regulation 4.13(a)(3) gives
a two-part test, and satisfying either of the prongs could
give an exemption from regulation, provided interests in
the commodity pool are exempt from registration under
the Securities Act of 1933, and such interests are offered
and sold without marketing to the public in the United
States: (1) the aggregate initial margin/premium does not
exceed 5% of the liquidation value of the CP Entity; or
(2) the aggregate net notional value of commodity interest
positions does not exceed 100% of the liquidation value of
the CP Entity. However, there is uncertainty surrounding
the calculation of aggregate initial margin/premium
under the first prong of the CFTC Regulation 4.13(a)(3)
exemption in the context of swap transactions (in particular
because these tests were drafted for traditional commodity
interests (ie, exchange-traded futures and options) rather
than swaps), and it is unclear how many CP Entities will
be able to take advantage of this exemption without further
guidance from the CFTC.
What does it mean for your business?
Unless an exemption applies, each such commodity
pool must have a CPO that is registered with the CFTC.
Each commodity pool may also have a CTA that must be
registered with the CFTC. The identity of these entities are
factual questions:

CPO: A CPO is defined as an entity that is engaged
in a business that is of the nature of a commodity
pool and that solicits, accepts, or receives from others
funds, securities, or property for the purpose of trading
in commodity interests. The identity of the CPO may
be unclear in certain contexts (eg, the securitization
context) and it may be necessary to consider this
question in detail.

CTA: A CTA is defined as an entity who, “for
compensation or profit, engages in the business of
advising others, either directly or through publications,
writings, or electronic media, as to the value or the
advisability of trading in,” or who “for compensation
or profit, and as part of a regular business, issues
or promulgates analyses or reports concerning”
commodity interests (including swaps). The CFTC has
interpreted this definition broadly to include a wide
range of entities (but does limit the concept to entities
earning specific advisory fee for their service).
Registration as a CPO or CTA requires registering both
the entity (in the case of a corporate CPO or CTA) and
certain individuals or entities that own or are involved in
the operation of the commodity pool. In addition, certain
individuals will be required to meet CFTC proficiency
standards, which may involve completing an examination.
Please call or email your usual Allen & Overy contact if
you would like more information, including a summary of
the registration, disclosure, reporting and record-keeping
requirements for CPOs and CTAs.
What is the policy?
In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act eliminated the “private
adviser exemption” upon which many advisers or
managers (including advisers or managers based outside
of the US) had relied in order to avoid registering as
an “investment adviser” with the US Securities and
Exchange Commission (
). Instead, the Dodd-Frank
Act now provides for three limited exemptions from
registration for advisers to “private funds”, the most
relevant of which are the Foreign Private Adviser
Exemption and the Private Fund Adviser Exemption.
The Foreign Private Adviser Exemption is available to
any investment adviser that (i) has no place of business in
the US, (ii) has, in total, fewer than 15 clients in the US
and/or investors in the US in private funds advised by
the investment adviser, (iii) has aggregate assets under
management attributable to such U.S. clients and investors
of less than US$25 million, and (iv) does not generally
hold itself out to the US public as an investment adviser.
The Private Fund Adviser Exemption is available to any
investment adviser solely to private funds that have less
than US$150 million in assets under management from the
US. This exemption would be available to a non-US adviser
whose activities in the US are limited solely to managing
qualifying private funds, provided that, if the non-US adviser
has a place of business in the US, it manages in aggregate
less than US$150 million in private fund assets from such
US place of business. A non-US adviser may advise non-US
clients other than private funds from outside the US. A Private
Fund Adviser would be deemed an “
Exempt Reporting
” and, while not required to register as an investment
adviser with the SEC, must comply with certain reporting
requirements regarding the private funds they advise and
background information on their business operations.
When did it come into effect?
Any “investment adviser” that did not meet one of the three
limited exemptions provided for in the Dodd-Frank Act was
required to register with the SEC by 30 March 2012. Exempt
Reporting Advisers were also required to file their initial
reports on Form ADV by 30 March 2012.
What does it mean for your business?
Going forward, European asset managers must determine
whether they fall into any of the exemptions from registration
provided for in the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires a
detailed facts and circumstances analysis. For example,
calculating the number of US clients and investors may
require looking through private funds to determine who
would be an “investor” or a “client” for purposes of the
Foreign Private Adviser Exemption. If it is determined that
none of the exemptions are available, you must register with
the SEC by completing Parts 1, 2A and 2B of Form ADV. In
addition, registered investment advisers are required to adopt
and implement policies and procedures that are reasonably
designed to prevent and detect violations of the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 and other federal securities laws, as
well as a written code of ethics. If you are deemed an Exempt
Reporting Adviser, you must complete certain sections of Part
1 of Form ADV. Both the full registration and the reporting
requirement for Exempt Reporting Advisers can be significant
undertakings due to the detailed information requested. Asset
managers should also take note that the SEC’s Division of
Enforcement has indicated that it will be scrutinizing Forms
ADV to determine whether investment advisers have filed
false or misleading information, and recent SEC enforcement
actions have focused on advisers’ compliance infrastructure.
Read more
We have prepared a client bulletin that goes into
significant detail as to the scope of the registration and
reporting requirements:
SEC Adopts New Advisers Act Rules, Pushes Back Filing
and Reporting Dates to First Quarter 2012
What is the policy?
In January 2010 following consultation with adviser and
former regulator Paul Volcker, President Barack Obama
proposed a rule (the
Volcker Rule
) aimed at restricting the
ability of banks to engage in proprietary trading or own,
invest in or sponsor hedge funds or private equity funds for
their own profit. The simple principle behind the Volcker
Rule was that financial institutions “should not be allowed
to run … hedge funds and private equit[y] funds while
running a bank backed by the American people”. Despite
no indication that funds had contributed to the financial
crisis (and no attempt to link bank failure to private

2012/2013: Challenging years for European asset managers – October 2012
funds) the President’s administration was determined to
protect taxpayers from further bail-outs by limiting fund
sponsorship and investment.
When does it come into effect and what is going to
happen before it does?
On 21 July 2010 the Dodd-Frank Act, which at section
619 set forth guiding principles for the Volcker Rule,
became law. During the autumn of 2011 and the winter
of 2012, all of the five federal agencies tasked with
implementing the Volcker Rule published for comment
their proposed implementing measures. These agencies
received thousands of comment letters, and they are
expected to issue a final rule by the end of 2012.
Although the Volcker Rule technically became effective
on 21 July 2012, financial institutions have a two-year
period to comply with its provisions. The compliance
grace period ends on 21 July 2014, but after this date a
financial institution can apply to the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System (the
) for up to
three additional one-year extensions to the grace period
(potentially extending the period for compliance to
21 July 2017). In seeking to apply these extensions it
should be noted that there is no guarantee they will be
granted by the Board, which has broad discretion to
accept or deny applications. In addition to the three
one-year extensions, the Volcker Rule also provides
for a five-year “illiquid fund exemption” for financial
institutions that had a contractual obligation in respect
of an illiquid fund that was in effect on 1 May 2010
(potentially allowing maximum extension of the grace
period to 21 July 2022 in respect of illiquid funds). The
Board has indicated that it intends to apply the illiquid
fund exemption in a restrictive manner, retaining wide
discretion to deny applications and adopting a very
narrow definition of “illiquid fund”.
In April 2012, the Board issued a statement that the
conformance period is a period in which a banking
entity can wind down, sell, or otherwise conform
its activities, investments, and relationships to the
requirements of the Volcker Rule. Further, the Board
stated that a banking entity should “engage in good faith
efforts, appropriate for its activities and investments,
that will result in the conformance of all of its activities
and investments … by no later than the end of the
conformance period.” These statements make clear that
banking entities may continue to engage in existing
activities and investments during the conformance
period, at least until they are required to make good
faith efforts to conform such activities and investments.
However, no guidance has been provided to indicate
when conformance efforts should begin.
How could your asset management business be
within its scope?
The Volcker Rule applies to any “banking entity”, which
is defined to include (i) any insured depository institution,
(ii) any company that controls an insured depository
institution, (iii) any non-US banking organization with
a branch or agency in the US and (iv) any affiliate
or subsidiary of any of the foregoing. Because the
Volcker Rule defines “banking entity” so broadly, its
provisions will apply to the asset management arm of any
bank that is subject to oversight by the Board due to a
branch or agency in the US.
What will it mean for your business?
For all European banking entities, the Volcker Rule will
require one or both of two courses of action:

The banking entity will have to tailor its funds
activities to fit in the Volcker Rule’s “foreign funds
exemption”. We recently described the foreign
funds exemption as well as issues surrounding its
interpretation and future application in this e-Alert:
The Volcker Rule and Foreign Banks, Part II: The
“Foreign Funds Exemption” and the Outer Limits of
Extraterritorial Reach

If the foreign funds exemption is either not practicable
or otherwise not desirable, the European banking
entity will have to comply with the restrictions of
the Volcker Rule. We give a general outline of these
restrictions with interpretation of what they mean here:
Walking a Narrow Path: The Proposed Volcker Rule
and Bank-Affiliated Asset Managers
Read more
Including the items referenced above, we have prepared
a number of client bulletins that go into significant
detail as to the scope and meaning of the Volcker Rule
and the obligations of banking entitites during the
conformance period:
Agencies release proposal to implement Volcker Rule and
request comment
The Volcker Rule and Foreign Banks Part I
“To Conform or Not to Conform”: The Federal Reserve
releases guidance on the obligations of banking entities
under the Volcker Rule during the conformance period.
What is the policy?
Congress created the Financial Stability Oversight Council
) as part of the Dodd-Frank Act’s efforts to
mitigate the threat to US financial markets of systemic
risk caused by the failure of a large banking entity or other
large financial institution. The Council’s task is to identify
risks to the stability of the US financial markets. As part
of this task, the Council is charged with designating
certain large banking institutions and non-bank financial
institutions as SIFIs. An institution that is deemed to be a
SIFI is subject to enhanced regulation and supervision by
the Board, as described below.
What types of companies are SIFIs?
SIFIs include (i) bank holding companies with
US$50 billion or more in total consolidated assets (
), and (ii) non-bank domestic or foreign companies
that are predominantly engaged in financial activities in
the United States (
Non-Bank SIFIs
). Bank SIFIs are
easily identified, but the scope of Non-Bank SIFI status is
unclear. The Dodd-Frank Act uses an assets and revenue
test to determine whether a company is “predominantly
engaged in financial activities,” but provides the Council
with the ability to develop the criteria and processes for
determining when a company is a Non-Bank SIFI. On 11
April 2012, the Council issued a final rule setting forth a
three-step process (in each step narrowing the universe
of companies it is reviewing) and a six-factor framework
(based on broad factors for consideration set forth in the
Dodd-Frank Act) to determine when a non-bank company
should be designated as a Non-Bank SIFI. The six factors
the Council intends to use are:


interconnectedness with the broader financial system;

substitutability of the company’s goods or services;


liquidity risk and maturity mismatch; and

existing regulatory scrutiny.
The Council will examine these categories from a
qualitative perspective and, in the case of certain
factors, using broadly applied quantitative thresholds.
Timothy Geithner, the Secretary of Treasury, has indicated
that the Council will make the first Non-Bank SIFI
designations during 2012.
What does designation as a SIFI mean for a company?
Companies that are designated Bank SIFIs or Non-Bank
SIFIs are subject to enhanced oversight and regulation by
the Board. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the Board to adopt
certain stringent prudential standards that will apply to
SIFIs. In January 2012 the Board proposed a rule setting out
these prudential standards. Notably, the proposed rule would

2012/2013: Challenging years for European asset managers – October 2012
not apply to non-US Bank SIFIs; the Board plans to issue a
separate release addressing prudential standards for non-US
Bank SIFIs in the near future. As proposed, SIFIs would:

be required to submit an annual “capital plan” to
the Board that describes, among other things, its
projected capital holdings and uses of capital for the
upcoming nine quarters;

be required to meet certain capital requirements;

be required to conduct periodic stress tests to measure
liquidity needs and capital holdings under various
stressed scenarios;

be required to limit the SIFI’s net credit exposure to
any one counterparty;

be required to create a risk committee of the SIFI’s
board of directors and designate a Chief Risk Officer;

if deemed a “grave threat” to US financial stability,
maintain a debt-to-equity ratio of no more than
15-to-1; and

be subject to an escalating four-step early-
remediation regime in the event the organization
begins to deteriorate and create a “living will” that
describes the SIFI’s processes and procedures in the
event it must wind down.
How could your asset management business be within
its scope and what will it mean for our business?
As discussed above, the current rule proposal for
regulating SIFIs only applies to domestic SIFI’s and
non-US Non-Bank SIFIs, but a subsequent rule proposal
is expected shortly on regulating non-US Bank SIFIs.
At this time our expectation is that the rule proposal for
regulating non-US Bank SIFIs will be similar to the rule
proposal discussed above. As a result, during the later
part of 2012, non-US asset managers should follow the
developments concerning the rule proposal for regulating
non-US SIFIs.
Read more
We have prepared a client bulletin that goes into significant
detail as to the rule proposal for applying enhanced
prdential standards to SIFIs:
Only A First Step: The Federal Reserve Board’s Proposed
Enhanced Prudential Standards For Systemically Important
Financial Institutions And Their Potential Implications for
Asset Managers
What is the policy?
In order to enhance its ability to monitor and investigate
the impact active market participants have on the securities
markets, the SEC adopted new Rule 13h-1, which is likely
to impose significant disclosure obligations and other
compliance burdens on market participants deemed to
be “
Large Traders
”. A Large Trader is a US or non-US
market participant that directly or indirectly exercises
investment discretion over one or more accounts and
effects transactions (including the exercise or assignment
of certain option contracts) for the purchase or sale of
any National Market System (
) security for or
on behalf of such accounts by or through one or more
US-registered broker-dealers in an aggregate amount
equal to or exceeding: (i) 2 million shares or shares with
a fair market value of US$20 million during a calendar
day; or (ii) 20 million shares or shares with a fair market
value of US$200 million during a calendar month. Once
a market participant qualifies as a Large Trader, it must
file Form 13H to disclose a fair amount of information,
including the types of business the Large Trader or its
affiliates engage in, a description of the Large Trader’s
operations and trading strategies, whether the Large Trader
or any of its affiliates is registered with the US Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (
) or regulated by a
foreign regulator, and an organizational chart illustrating
the Large Trader, its parent company (if any), its affiliates
that exercise investment discretion over NMS securities
Securities Affiliates
), and its CFTC-registered affiliates.
A parent company can file one Form 13H on behalf of all
of its Large Trader subsidiaries as long as it “controls”
such subsidiaries.
When did it come into effect?
Rule 13h-1 became effective as of 3 October 2011. Large
Traders must identify themselves to the SEC by submitting
an initial Form 13H within 10 days of meeting the
aggregate thresholds discussed above, and subsequently
submit an Annual Filing every year. Large Traders are also
required to amend the Form 13H if the information therein
becomes inaccurate.
How could your asset management business be
within its scope?
If your regular business is to exercise investment discretion
over any accounts for which you enter into transactions
involving US securities, you may be required to comply
with Rule 13h-1. It is important to review your trading
activity to determine whether you meet or exceed the
aggregate thresholds discussed above.
What does it mean for your business?
If you determine that you meet the Large Trader definition,
you will be required to complete and submit the Form
13H, as well as an Annual Filing and amended Form 13H
whenever the filing becomes inaccurate for any reason.
If your organization is on the borderline of the aggregate
thresholds mentioned above, you can elect to either
(i) voluntarily file Form 13H or (ii) not file Form 13H
and instead monitor your aggregate trading activity to
see whether the thresholds are triggered. However, if you
follow the latter approach, it is important to remember that
once the aggregate thresholds are triggered, you must file
the Form 13H within 10 days. We caution that preparing
a Form 13H can be a significant undertaking, and would
likely take more than 10 days to prepare, especially if you
elect to file one Form 13H at the parent company level.
Read more
We have prepared a client bulletin that goes into
significant detail as to the scope of the Large Trader
reporting requirements:
SEC Adopts New Rule Requiring Disclosure of Trading

2012/2013: Challenging years for European asset managers – October 2012
Key contacts
If you require advice on any of the matters raised in this document, please call any of our partners listed below or your
usual contact at Allen & Overy.
Norbert Wiederholt
Partner, Germany
Tel +49 69 2648 5786
Frank Herring
Partner, Germany
Tel +49 69 2648 5310
Massimiliano Danusso
Partner, Italy
Tel +39 06 6842 7613
Salvador Ruiz Bachs
Partner, Spain
Tel +34 91 782 99 23
Matt Huggett
Partner, UK
Tel +44 (0)20 3088 4929
Bob Penn
Partner, UK
Tel +44 (0)20 3088 2582
Nick Williams
Partner, UK
Tel +44 (0)20 3088 2739
John Goodhall
Partner, UK
Tel +44 (0)20 3088 2506
Pierre Schleimer
Partner, Luxembourg
Tel +352 44 44 5 5310
Jean-Christian Six
Partner, Luxembourg
Tel +352 44 44 5 5710
Ellen Cramer-de Jong
Partner, Netherlands
Tel +31 20 674 1468
Brice Henry
Partner, France
Tel +31 1 40 06 53 66
Sylvia Kierszenbaum
Partner, Belgium
Tel +32 3 287 74 10
Douglas Landy
Partner, USA
Tel +1 212 610 6405
Chris Salter
Partner, USA
Tel +1 202 683 3851
Charles Borden
Partner, USA
Tel +1 212 683 3852
Barbara Stettner
Partner, USA
Tel +1 202 683 3850
Jeffrey A. Lehtman
Partner, USA
Tel +1 212 683 3875
Bill Satchell
Partner, USA
Tel +1 202 683 3860
Mitchell Silk
Partner, USA
Tel +1 212 610 6303
William E. White
Partner, USA
Tel +1 202 683 3876

2012/2013: Challenging years for European asset managers – October 2012
www.allenovery.com |
Allen & Overy LLP
One Bishops Square, London E1 6AD, United Kingdom

Tel +44 (0)20 3088 0000

Fax +44 (0)20 3088 0088

Allen & Overy maintains a database of business contact details in order to develop and improve its services to its clients. The
information is not traded with any external bodies or organisations. If any of your details are incorrect or you no longer wish to receive
publications from Allen & Overy, please email
Allen & Overy LLP
One Bishops Square, London E1 6AD, United Kingdom
Tel +44 20 3088 0000
Fax +44 20 3088 0088
In this document, Allen & Overy means Allen & Overy LLP and/or its affiliated undertakings. The term partner is used to refer to a
member of Allen & Overy LLP or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications or an individual with equivalent
status in one of Allen & Overy LLP’s affiliated undertakings.
Allen & Overy LLP or an affiliated undertaking has an office in each of: Abu Dhabi, Amsterdam, Antwerp, Athens (representative office),
Bangkok, Beijing, Belfast, Bratislava, Brussels, Bucharest (associated office), Budapest, Casablanca, Doha, Dubai, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt,
Hamburg, Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Hong Kong, Istanbul, Jakarta (associated office), London, Luxembourg, Madrid, Mannheim, Milan,
Moscow, Munich, New York, Paris, Perth, Prague, Riyadh (associated office), Rome, São Paulo, Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo,
Warsaw and Washington, D.C.
DP1201003-DPR200504 v9